URGENT!<\/p>\n
Department of Justice Invites Comments to Proposed Changes to Movie (with thanks to John Waldo, Esq. for his assistance)<\/p>\n The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is inviting written comments from the Most important, the DOJ would like to change the regulations governing movie Does captioning only 50 percent of all movies shown sound like “full and ALDA’s position:<\/p>\n All movies should be made accessible to people who are deaf, deafened, and People who are deaf, deafened, and hard of hearing should be able to see any There are various methods of captioning – there is no preferred method of Letter to the DOJ:<\/p>\n The DOJ requests responses to 26 questions. You may respond to one or more You may view the entire document at http:\/\/www.regulations.gov<\/a>.<\/p>\n In your letter to the DOJ, indicate your interest in the ANPRM and why (you Indicate which questions you are answering.<\/p>\n Indicate what you would like to see changed in the DOJ regulations (100% Thank the DOJ for their willingness to consider comments.<\/p>\n Sample Letter<\/p>\n Your Name Disability Rights Section Re: Docket # 112; RIN 1190-AA63<\/p>\n I am deaf\/deafened\/hard of hearing and cannot enjoy going to the movies The ANPRM is flawed in proposing a rule that only 50% of all movies must be I agree with the DOJ that the theaters are entitled to select from among the I do not believe that open captioning (OC) should be ruled out. OC is an Failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services is a form of Suggested Answers to Questions Asked by DOJ:<\/p>\n Question 1. Neither the proposed 50% access requirement nor the five-year Questions 4-6. The captioning requirement should be based on number of Question 8. If theaters fulfill their access obligations through CC films, Question 9. OC is an effective method of making aurally delivered material Question 16. Digitally equipped theaters may show OC movies at no cost I applaud the DOJ for acknowledging the importance of movie captioning. I Theaters must follow the ADA and show captioned movies to the extent that I also believe the DOJ should permit and even encourage open captioning as a As a person who is deaf\/deafened\/hard of hearing, I appreciate the Sincerely,<\/p>\n Your Name<\/p>\n [When you write your letter, add something personal about your inability to How to file your letter:<\/p>\n Comments should be identified by RIN 1190-AA63 or Docket ID No. 112. They By mail: Send to the following address.<\/p>\n Disability Rights Section Electronically: Go to the following web site:<\/p>\n
\nCaptioning Regulations!<\/strong><\/p>\n
\npublic by January 24, 2011 in response to its Advanced Noticed of Proposed
\nRulemaking (ANPRM) requiring movie theater owners and operators to show
\ncaptioned movies.<\/p>\n
\ncaptioning to state thatonly half of all movies need be made available to
\npeople who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing through captioning.
\nFurthermore, DOJ wants to give the movie houses up to five years to meet the
\n50 percent goal!<\/p>\n
\nequal enjoyment” under the ADA to you? Does taking five years to reach the
\n50 percent mark sound like full accessibility to you? If not, write the DOJ
\nbefore January 24th and let them know!<\/p>\n
\nhard of hearing through captioning.<\/p>\n
\nmovie at any time.<\/p>\n
\ncaptioning as long as effective communication is provided. ALDA would like
\nto see the DOJ encourage open captioning; ALDA would like to see open
\ncaptioning required when closed captioning is not available.<\/p>\n
\nquestions. We strongly encourage you to please respond at a minimum to the
\nfirst question, which asks whether the 50 percent cap for captioning is
\nacceptable.<\/p>\n
\nare deaf, deafened or have hearing loss and must have captions in order to
\nenjoy movies, for example).<\/p>\n
\ncaptioning)<\/p>\n
\nYour Address
\nYour phone and\/or email address
\nToday’s date<\/p>\n
\nCivil Rights Division
\nU.S. Department of Justice
\nP.O. Box 2885
\nFairfax, Virginia 22031 – 0885<\/p>\n
\nwithout captioning. I want to thank the Department of Justice for focusing
\non the issue of movie captioning and for correctly identifying the theaters
\nthemselves as the entities responsible for the extremely low prevalence of
\nmovie accessibility.<\/p>\n
\nmade accessible through captioning over a five-year phase-in period. The
\nappropriate rule, as stated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Arizona
\nex. rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Ent., Inc., is that accessibility is
\nrequired unless the theaters can demonstrate that providing access would
\nconstitute an “undue burden.” That standard requires individualized,
\ncase-by-case determinations of financial ability. The 50% rule would be
\narbitrary.<\/p>\n
\navailable modes of effective captioning.<\/p>\n
\neffective means of making aurally delivered information available. Not only
\nis OC effective and should be permitted, but it should be required in
\nsituations where OC is possible but CC is not.<\/p>\n
\ndiscrimination. Movie theaters are public facilities under the ADA, and
\ncurrently discriminate against me by preventing me from enjoying movies in
\ntheir facility.<\/p>\n
\ncompliance schedule is appropriate. Unless a theater can show undue burden,
\nthere should be 100% captioning as is required under the ADA.<\/p>\n
\ntheaters, not on number of captioned movies, because theaters should not be
\npermitted to reduce their captioning obligations by deliberately selecting
\nnon-captioned films.<\/p>\n
\nthose films need to be shown in captioned form beginning on the day of
\ntheir release.<\/p>\n
\navailable to persons with hearing loss, and should therefore be permitted
\nand, in fact, encouraged.<\/p>\n
\nsimply by selecting the captioned option from their digital menu. The cost
\nof showing CC movies will vary, depending upon the display method selected.<\/p>\n
\nalso applaud the DOJ for recognizing that the resistance to captioning has
\ncome not from the movie studios, which arrange captions for most of their
\nmajor releases, but from the theaters, who have generally declined to
\ninstall the equipment needed to display captions.<\/p>\n
\ndoing so does not constitute an “undue burden” or a “fundamental
\nalteration.” Closed-captioned movies do not affect the experience of others
\nand therefore are not a “fundamental alteration.” Open captions are not an
\nundue burden; determining whether closed captions are an undue burden must
\nbe determined on a case-by-case basis. The DOJ proposal to make 50% of an
\nentity’s screens accessible through closed captioning therefore does not
\nsatisfy their obligations under Title III of the ADA.<\/p>\n
\nmeans of providing access.<\/p>\n
\nopportunity to comment on the ANPRM, and look forward to meaningful access
\nto the movies.<\/p>\n
\nenjoy going to the movies with friends and family.]<\/p>\n
\nmay be submitted by regular mail or electronically. They must be received by
\nJanuary 24, 2011.<\/p>\n
\nCivil Rights Division
\nU.S. Department of Justice
\nP.O. Box 2885
\nFairfax, Virginia 22031 – 0885<\/p>\n